Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Inkling 2 Small
Inkling 2 Small has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Inkling 2 Small vs LFM3-1.7B
Updated November 7, 2026. Rank says Inkling 2 Small is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Share or export
Decision reading
Inkling 2 Small has the higher public point estimate, 59.06 versus 21.3. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 7 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Model A
Thinking Machines Lab
59.06/100
Estimated · Public rank #56
Conditional range 44.7–73.4
- Shared results
- 7
- Inkling 2 Small only
- 18
- LFM3-1.7B only
- 17
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Inkling 2 Small and LFM3-1.7B. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
LFM3-1.7B is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
LFM3-1.7B is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedChat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-ratesRepository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
59.7Inkling 2 Small14.1LFM3-1.7B
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8
Inkling 2 Small has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
18 Inkling 2 Small only
7 Shared
17 LFM3-1.7B only
3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
SWE MultilingualCoding
Normalized gap 58.2Inkling 2 Small:81.2%LFM3-1.7B:23%SWE-bench VerifiedCoding
Normalized gap 38.8Inkling 2 Small:82.2%LFM3-1.7B:43.4%GPQAKnowledge
Normalized gap 29.6Inkling 2 Small:93%LFM3-1.7B:63.4%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Directional only- Inkling 2 Small
- 59.9
- Supported · #26/131
- LFM3-1.7B
- 15.6
- Estimated · #123/131
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 10 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Inkling 2 Small
- 59.7
- Supported · #20/157
- LFM3-1.7B
- 14.1
- Estimated · #152/157
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Inkling 2 Small
- 60.4
- Estimated · #46/178
- LFM3-1.7B
- 24.4
- Estimated · #173/178
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Inkling 2 Small
- 86.1
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- LFM3-1.7B
- 59.6
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Inkling 2 Small
- 86.6
- #12/59
- LFM3-1.7B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Inkling 2 Small
- Not ranked
- LFM3-1.7B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Inkling 2 Small
- Not ranked
- LFM3-1.7B
- 71.7
- #76/157
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Inkling 2 Small
- 85.9
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- LFM3-1.7B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Inkling 2 Small | LFM3-1.7B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 59.9Supported · #26/131 | 15.6Estimated · #123/131 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 10 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 59.7Supported · #20/157 | 14.1Estimated · #152/157 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 6 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 60.4Estimated · #46/178 | 24.4Estimated · #173/178 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 3 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 86.1Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 59.6Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 86.6#12/59 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 71.7#76/157 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 85.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Inkling 2 Small
- $0.0008
- Fits in one request
- LFM3-1.7B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
LFM3-1.7B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Inkling 2 Small
- $0.018
- Fits in one request
- LFM3-1.7B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
LFM3-1.7B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Inkling 2 Small
- $0.022
- Fits in one request
- LFM3-1.7B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
LFM3-1.7B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationInkling 2 SmallLFM3-1.7B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Inkling 2 Small
LFM3-1.7B
API model ID
Inkling 2 Small
Not sourced
LFM3-1.7B
LiquidAI/LFM3-1.7B
Liquid AI LFM3-1.7B model cardCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Inkling 2 Small
$0.03 per 1M cached input tokens
Tinker models and pricingLFM3-1.7B
No comparable hosted API rate
Liquid AI LFM3-1.7B model cardDocumented inputs
Inkling 2 Small
Not sourced
LFM3-1.7B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Inkling 2 Small
Not sourced
LFM3-1.7B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Inkling 2 Small
Not sourced
LFM3-1.7B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Inkling 2 Small
Hybrid
LFM3-1.7B
Reasoning
Weight access
Inkling 2 Small
Proprietary
LFM3-1.7B
Open Weight
License
Inkling 2 Small
Proprietary
LFM3-1.7B
Open Weight
Release date
Inkling 2 Small
2026-11-05
LFM3-1.7B
2026-10-27
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Inkling 2 Small has the higher public point estimate, 59.06 versus 21.3. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Inkling 2 Small has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Inkling 2 Small or LFM3-1.7B?
Inkling 2 Small has the higher public point estimate, 59.06 versus 21.3. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Inkling 2 Small or LFM3-1.7B?
Inkling 2 Small scores higher for coding on the public lane, 59.7 to 14.1. LFM3-1.7B is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Inkling 2 Small or LFM3-1.7B?
Inkling 2 Small scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 59.9 to 15.6. LFM3-1.7B is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Inkling 2 Small or LFM3-1.7B?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Inkling 2 Small or LFM3-1.7B?
Inkling 2 Small has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Inkling 2 Small
API / mo$975
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
LFM3-1.7B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$298
Break-even—
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence42 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Inkling 2 Small85.1%SourceLFM3-1.7B12.9%SourceInkling 2 Small leads this result
BrowseComp
Inkling 2 Small90.2%SourceLFM3-1.7B—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Inkling 2 Small90.9%SourceLFM3-1.7B—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Inkling 2 Small85%SourceLFM3-1.7B32.6%SourceInkling 2 Small leads this result
JobBench
Inkling 2 Small70.5%SourceLFM3-1.7B—Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Inkling 2 Small—LFM3-1.7B41.3%SourceNot directly comparable
BFCL v4
Inkling 2 Small—LFM3-1.7B71.4%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Inkling 2 Small—LFM3-1.7B68.0%SourceNot directly comparable
WebArena-Verified
Inkling 2 Small—LFM3-1.7B38.4%SourceNot directly comparable
ToolSandbox
Inkling 2 Small—LFM3-1.7B80.36%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Inkling 2 Small—LFM3-1.7B68.6%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Inkling 2 Small—LFM3-1.7B13.9%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveClaw
Inkling 2 Small—LFM3-1.7B45.60%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Inkling 2 Small82.2%SourceLFM3-1.7B43.4%SourceInkling 2 Small leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Inkling 2 Small81.2%SourceLFM3-1.7B23%SourceInkling 2 Small leads this result
sweMarathon
Inkling 2 Small38.8%SourceLFM3-1.7B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Inkling 2 Small85.1%SourceLFM3-1.7B12.9%SourceInkling 2 Small leads this result
DeepSWE
Inkling 2 Small72.1%SourceLFM3-1.7B—Not directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.2
Inkling 2 Small31.9%SourceLFM3-1.7B—Not directly comparable
SciCode
Inkling 2 Small—LFM3-1.7B28.5%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Inkling 2 Small—LFM3-1.7B73.5%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench Pro
Inkling 2 Small—LFM3-1.7B31.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
CharXiv
Inkling 2 Small87.7%SourceLFM3-1.7B—Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Inkling 2 Small85.6%SourceLFM3-1.7B—Not directly comparable
Chartography (no tools)
Inkling 2 Small36.7%SourceLFM3-1.7B—Not directly comparable
Chartography (tools)
Inkling 2 Small80.4%SourceLFM3-1.7B—Not directly comparable
BabyVision
Inkling 2 Small68.6%SourceLFM3-1.7B—Not directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Inkling 2 Small93.7%SourceLFM3-1.7B—Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Inkling 2 Small83.8%SourceLFM3-1.7B—Not directly comparable
PerceptionBench
Inkling 2 Small64.7%SourceLFM3-1.7B—Not directly comparable
MathVision
Inkling 2 Small92.8%SourceLFM3-1.7B—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
Instruction following
Math
42 public results · 7 shared
Watch Inkling 2 Small vs LFM3-1.7B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 6,100+ subscribers.
Last updated November 7, 2026